>
Grant Bowman > > >We talked at one point about assisting with the evolution
of XML
> > >standards if that were necessary. Are there strategic areas we should
> > >examine for possible involvement with respect to the W3C and OASIS
> > >standards bodies?
>
> [snip]
>
> > Ken Holman:
> > I think the Bootstrap work will beget more requirements for
> > interoperability than for modifications to base technical standards, but
I
> > don't think the work has yet evolved quite to the point where forming an
> > OASIS Technical Committee at this time can be productive.
>
> Sort of my thought, as far as timing goes -- though I'm wincing
> at some of the base standards, and how they would affect OHS
> plans.

I would rather approach it from the view that the base standards
provide platform and tools for making OHS/DKR possible. In a
way of thinking about it, if we embrace and extend the w3c standards
we are on the standards-track and if we toss the standards then we are
on the Xanadu track.
Both approaches are valid and needed in this project. In fact, I think
Lee's recent contributions show how to achieve Xanadu ideals
using emerging w3c recommendations possibly not considered by the
Xanadu team.

Nicholas> Do w3c/oasis folks like to know what is going on with OSS
projects,
> or are they of a committee-centric mindset?
>
Well, generally, the idea is that w3c folks want to see at least
one open and unencumbered implementation before recommendation,
I think. This wording is a pretty good version of what I have learned
"Where this project encounters improvements and extensions to recognized
recommendations, it is the intent to submit these to appropriate
standards/recommendations bodies for consideration. "

I know this sounds naive as hell, but Overall, the standards will help us.